11395 

B 

. T3 


HC 

Copy 2 



rr 



C« °o Jr 

*o< *'"•* • 

*VVl'v c\ *9 V • *••- <> 

tr. A .VvWa*» ^ A 

. ^ 4r ^ SS * V«** . < o ^ vf\ 




w 



»' y, 


A' ^ 4 •• * 

,-s , 4 .y‘^ % <v 

K • 




C\ % _ 

V .V °^ ‘••‘>° 

► ’•*- v v **:*% ca , 

**,*« /jfer* % ./ 

vv r^lrat^u 

• aV*\> 

* av *5y 

'*^*d$?9£& r % <3L V " ci* • ' 6^»’ * v 



* <A ^ o *C 

* <V> oV 
» *§? &. * 


' ..•* <.6 o, A 

-CT % * v ll+ *b <^ V of" 0 4 

C +V/72??> * _ o •_ c c$aw 


*0* 





^ ♦ 



5 ^ ° 4 a ***»° 9 a 0 "<$> *«#** 

• <A <9' **•*. ^ 

* a v- V yssSSSl^* ^'?< 

» * £ .^V 



■♦. t#> A .* 

. 0* 

* A o. 

* «> O- % 

A? % *•'•<>* 
V V *»/;*'♦ CV , 

^ \/ 




• ,5 S ^ “ 0 

’ V 'K * 



yA 



.0*.1^. *<? 







% * 


V . 

jr .....V*"’*/ 

• .* 


• • ® 


• * 





* 4P % r 


> • * 



: A 1 ) 

s - <. *'T'.".*' .(P ^ 

A' o • * •« ^ n v . *.. •**. 

,-&• * _1^CV *P /*v i 

V o' 

*••- ^ V s CV A <y 

•#>> A •<***». + £ . 

VI ’ *5 




• » 


°. * 
;,* S' % 

* % «6' o 

n v . W ^ ^ 

C° °o 

* 



A* % 0*V* ^ 

4\ 4 <nN\\\T\^l # 



4 A 


^ £ * (V\\\W ffy/ , , 

** " 

4 N % 

^ r ; 

X ■?%*' / 

I • O. V V % i‘‘* # 



.*'.&* 'o 
,o* .•*-•• ♦. 

* W ' 


, O. 




* * * , *p 

r<y < 

C *♦—/***» * 



r \ <U V d* * 

• A* 1^) »n - . * /\ ^ 

°o ,^ s * 6 J4^ ^ 

. « V *- ^ .V o' ^ w * 

■* o * 


I 



o v 








































THE 

WOMAN 

QUESTION? 

ACCORDING TO 

MOSES AND PAUL 


BY 


ISAAC N. TAYLOR. 

BOSTON 

ARENA PUBLLISUING CO 

COPLEY SQUARE 


^<3 1395 
.13 

Cotry Z 


Froh* 

Ancrican Colonization Saeiaty 
May 28, 1913. 






COPYRIGHTED BY I. N. TAYLOR, 1894.. 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 





























































































































To my beloved daughter, Mrs.Esther Taylor Housh, 
whose life has been given to the cause of Woman, 
ilong the lines of the lessons I taught her in child¬ 
hood, these pages are worthily inscribed. 

The 4uthok. 

































































































THE WOMAN QUESTION 

ACCORDING TO MOSES AND PAUL. 


Does the Bible deny to women, as women, any 
of the Rights, or excuse them from any of the 
Duties, sacred or civil, which pertain to men? 



N attempting 
t o maintain 
the negative 
of this ques¬ 
tion, I shall 
proceed as 
the land sur¬ 
veyor and the 
conveyanc e r 
at the most 


Note.—A s italics, capitals, punctuation points, 
etc., are not understood to be divinely inspired, 
they are my own, throughout these pages, and 
here used to express more fully my understand¬ 
ing of the text. 











6 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

prominent point, inclose the 
premises by definite lines, and 
end at the place of beginning. 
This place of beginning is Gen¬ 
esis 1 : 26-28. “ And God said: 
Let ns make Man in our image, 
after our likeness : And let 
them have dominion over the 
fish of the sea, and over the 
fowl of the air, and over the 
cattle and over all the earth. 

• . . So God created Man 

in his own image, in the image 
of God created he him ; male 
and female created he them. 
And God blessed them and 
and God said unto them , Be 
fruitful and multiply and re¬ 
plenish the earth and subdue it, 
and have dominion,” etc., as 
above. 

And to emphasize the import 


THE WOMAN QUESTION. 7 


of this peculiar language there 
is a repetition of it in the begin¬ 
ning of the 5th Chapter, in 
these still more peculiar terms: 
“This is the book of the gen¬ 
erations of Adam, in the day 
that God created Man, in the 
likeness of God made he him; 
male and female created he 
them and blessed them and 
called their name Adam ” —in 
Hebrew, Ish. 

Now whether it was from 
the hint thus divinely given in 
the name itself, or from his 
own innate sense of the per¬ 
sonal dignity of the fair one 
beside him, or from the logic 
of the charter of their common 
right and duty to subdue the 
earth, and to have dominion 
over aU things as well as to 


8 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

multiply and replenish the 
earth, we need not inquire. 
But anyway, Ish — the male 
half of the twain—called the 
female half of the twain Isha 
(the feminine form of the word 
Ish) thus conceding to her all 
that the generic name of the 
race implied. God called their 
name Ish and required them 
to have dominion. The male 
half of Ish called the other 
half Isha simply to distinguish 
the sex of the one common 
multiplier, subduer, and domi- 
nator of the earth. 

Now, all this singular lan¬ 
guage, without note or com¬ 
ment, should affirm, at once 
and forever, the following prop¬ 
ositions : 

1. The generic name of 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 


9 


this dual being — Ish in He¬ 
brew, Anthropos in Greek, 
Homo in Latin, Man in Eng¬ 
lish, and so on through all the 
tongues of mankind, indicates 
the full equal dignity, right 
and destiny of the sexes. 

2. This dual being was cre¬ 
ated in the image, after the 
likeness of God: that is, neither 
the male alone nor the female 
alone represented this simili¬ 
tude, but the two jointly did 
contain and reflect this image. 

3. The simple fact of this 
divine likeness — the one attri¬ 
bute which, from the begin¬ 
ning, distinguished this species 
of the creation — constituted 
the basis of their prerogative 
to subdue and dominate the 
earth. ♦ This is implied and 


10 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

almost asserted in the insepara¬ 
ble, infrangible links of the 
chain—God created Man in 
his own image ; male and fe¬ 
male ; and said nnto them , 
multiply and have dominion. 

4. As this Bill of Rights 
and Program of Duties, thus 
based on the divine similitude 
which is elsewhere in the Book 
alleged to consist in knowledge, 
righteousness and holiness (see 
Col. 3 : 10, and Eph. 4 : 24), 
issued from the Supreme Au¬ 
thor and Ruler to innocent and 
loyal subjects, any subsequent 
disloyalty, impairing necessa¬ 
rily this divine image, would 
modify the relation of the sub¬ 
jects to the Sovereign; and if 
ehher of them were primarily 
oi chiefly in transgression, this 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 11 


would modify their relation to 
each other, and so the original 
status of equality would be 
disturbed and made subject to 
readjustment at the pleasure 
of the Sovereign. 

5. Asa matter of fact, this 
dual subject did become dis¬ 
loyal and this divine image im¬ 
paired, though not obliterated, 
as is evident from such pas¬ 
sages as Gen. 9 : 6, and James 
3: 9, 10. Accordingly, the 
garden of Eden, the original 
home and ever after the em¬ 
blem of innocence, ease and 
pleasure, was forfeited alike to 
both, and instead thereof was 
given the wide, wild world, 
teeming with noxious plants, 
buzzing with venomous insects, 
swarming with subtle, sensual 


12 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

beasts. But the right and 
duty of replenishing and sub¬ 
duing the earth and holding 
full sway over all remained 
unre yoked and unchanged. 
And in all this Ish and Isha 
were still side by side. 

6. But alas ! She was not 
only first but chief in trans¬ 
gression. For, without the 
presence or knowledge of her 
husband, she yielded to the 
seductive oratory and sensuous 
cliann of the Prince of all the 
Pre-Adamic tribes, and so her 
act was a crime against her 
husband as well as a sin 
against her Sovereign. Ish 
was not deceived (see I. Tim. 
2: 14), but followed his fallen 
IsnA with his eyes open to the 
consequences. His act was a 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 13 


sin against his God, but not a 
crime against his wife. Hence 
the special penalty incurred by 
the mother of all living: “I 
will greatly multiply thy sor¬ 
row and thy conception: in 
sorrow shalt thou bring forth 
children : And thy desire shall 
be to thy husband and he shall 
rule over thee.” Here is 
plainly enough implied a dis¬ 
turbance of the original con¬ 
jugal equilibrium, but it relates 
only to Isha as Eve, or mother. 

I now advance to the bolder 
assertion that this original Bill 
of Human Rights and Program 
of Human Duties is reaffirmed, 
amplified, enlightened and glo¬ 
rified throughout the Sacred 
Scriptures. 

Thus the Psalmist (Ps. 8: 


14 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 


3-6) ratifies in almost identi¬ 
cal terms the original docu¬ 
ment : “ When I consider thy 

heavens . . . what is Man 

that thou art mindful of him ? ” 
Then comes the answer to thh 
question of awe and wonder : 
“ Thou hast made him a little 
lower than the Angels and hast 
crowned him with glory anc 
honor. Thou madest him tc 
have dominion over the works 
of thy hand ; thou hast put all 
things under his feet.” 

Now observe how here, as in 
the original passage, the gen¬ 
eric term Man which, as I have 
shown, includes both sexes, is 
used, and how also the same 
sanction of their supreme do¬ 
minion is alleged, namely, their 
original place in the scale of 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 15 


1 ; 

\ creation. For, instead of the 

( phrases — “ in the image and 
after the likeness of God” — 
is substituted (their equivalent 
in the argument) the phrases — 
a little lower than the An¬ 
gels,” and “ crowned with honor 
‘and glory.” 

And again, that wonderful 
exposition and amplification of 
Paul (Heb. 2 : 5-8): “ For unto 
the Angels hath He not put in 
subjection the world to come 
thereof we speak ; but one in 
mi certain place (and that place 
is Ps. 8 : just quoted) testified 
saying: What is Man that 
Thou art mindful of him or 
the Son of Man that Thou vis- 
itest him ? Thou madest him 
a little lower than the Angels, 
Thou crownedst him with glory 




16 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 


and honor and didst set Him 
over the works of Thy hand ; 
Thou hast put all things in 
subjugation under him.” Then 
the Apostle goes on to explain 
and apply thus : “ But now 

we see not yet all things put 
under him.” What! 0 reverend 
expounder! Is it some species | 
of fish or fowl or cattle or creep¬ 
ing thing, or some field or for¬ 
est or mine, or some industrial 
art or some science, that is not 
yet put under him — made 
subject to his masterful genius 
and his cunning right hand ? ” 
No, no,” says Paul. “I was 
speaking of what our great 
Master called the world to 
come”— the coming age — the 
Gospel age. That original doc¬ 
ument, promulgated in Eden, 





THE WOMAN QUESTION. 17 


*;as prophetic as well as his¬ 
toric, and it included the whole 
domain of morals and religion. 
And when I said: We see 
not yet all things put under 
him. I had my eye on the 
high plane of conquests yet to 
be, under the leadership and on 
account of the sacrifices for all 
humanity of One who was in¬ 
cluded originally in the charter 
of dominion. For, as I was 
about to sny, “We see not yet 
all things put under him, but 
we see Jesus who was mafie a 
little lower than the Angels, 
for the suffering of death, 
crowned with glory and honor,, 
that he by the grace of God 
should taste death for every 
man” 

I have thus reverently inter- 


18 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

rogated Paul and put his an¬ 
swer into his mouth,because this 
is evidently his meaning. For, 
he goes right on to show the 
real participation of Jesus in 
human nature, so that, in this 
capacity as Man, he may be 
seen and known to be included 
in that original commission 
as the Representative of all 
Humanity, and that the origi¬ 
nal injunction to subdue and 
have dominion included all 
moral and spiritual reforms to 
the end of time, and that 
indeed these last are chiefly in¬ 
tended to be accomplished 
in Christ, that is, in the Chris¬ 
tian Kingdom. But in Christ, 
that is, in His Kingdom — His 
system of moral control, and 
including its constituent sub- 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 19 


jects, its co-workers and its 
beneficiaries, there is neither 
Jew nor Greek, neither bond 
nor free, neither male nor fe¬ 
male, or, in full, plain, modern 
phrase, no distinction in mat¬ 
ters of privilege, duty, or 
award, founded on nationality, 
social condition, or sex. 

So, whether we ask the ques¬ 
tion under discussion at the gate 
of Paradise or at the door of the 
Christian Kingdom, the answer 
is the same, and it is No. From 
the uprooting of the first thistle 
just outside the gate of Eden 
to the final coronation of the 
King of Kings, nowhere is 
woman relieved from any ser¬ 
vice or refused any privilege 
pertaining to the subjugation 
of all things, material and 


20 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

spiritual, to the dominion of 
knowle Ige, righteousness and 
holiness. But, according to 
the Book, Ish and Isha shall 
stand and work and triumph— 
peer and peeress, hero and 
heroine, side by side, through 
all the domains of industrial 
art, science, religion, society 
and civil government, until the 
last reluctant political party 
shall have yielded to the be¬ 
hests of the Model Man, and 
the Nations, as Nations, shall 
have brought their honor and 
their glory into the Capital 
City of the confederated Repub¬ 
lics of the Planet. 

With this exposition of the 
original document defining hu¬ 
man rights and duties, and fore¬ 
shadowing human destinies, for 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 21 

which, it will be seen, I am 
indebted chiefly to Paul, the 
famous so-called anti-woman’s 
rights man, I might here rest 
the case. And I would do so 
but for a few passages which 
seem to many good people to 
constitute an amendment of 
the original charter. One of 
these is in the immediate con¬ 
text of the great document 
itself,— so near as to seem to 
be a part of it. Five others are 
in the writings of Paul, whose 
magnificent commentary on the 
document we have just now 
considered, and one other is by 
Peter. 

As the whole woman ques¬ 
tion of the day, so far as the 
Bible is concerned, depends on 
the interpretation of these pas- 


22 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

sages, let us now examine them 
with care and candor, in the 
light of those only true rules 
of interpretation — their har¬ 
mony with the general tenor 
of Scripture; the sense of the 
immediate context; the proper 
translation of the original 
terms. 

Assuming that my readers 
have ready access to the Book, 
I request them to turn to the 
passages and read them before 
proceeding further : but if not 
convenient, read on. Here is 
the list: Gen. 3 : 16 ; I. Cor. 
11: 3-16, and 14: 34-35; 

Eph. 5: 21-33; I. Tim. 2: 
11-15, and I. Pet. 3 : 1-7. 

The affirmative of our ques¬ 
tion, which I now propose to 
refute, assumes that these pas- 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 23 


sages, each and all, are to be 
understood in the light of the 
fact of the original subjection 
of Eve to Adam. To this I 
agree. This is the way Paul 
and Peter put it. Let us all 
stand in with Paul and Peter. 
But here we part from the 
affirmative, abruptly, distinctly, 
entirely and forever. For it 
assumes that Eve was, in thaf 
whole transaction — the crime 
and the penalty — the repre¬ 
sentative of all womanhood 
throughout all womandom to 
the end of time, and that Adam 
was the representative of ^11 
manhood throughout all man- 
dom for the same long period. 
It assumes that the terms are 
correctly translated from the 
original; and finally, that by 


24 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

legitimate inference from all 
this, the male moiety of so¬ 
ciety, sacred and civil, has the 
right to give or refuse, to the 
female moiety of society, sa¬ 
cred and civil, such privileges 
as he may please to bestow or 
withhold. 

My first answer is, that no 
one of these passages refers to 
woman as woman, hut only as 
wife in her relation to her own 
husband. 

The text to be examined 
first is Gen. 3 : 16, not only 
because it is first in the Book, 
hut because it is quoted by Paul 
and by Peter in every other 
passage, both for illustration 
and for authority, in the sacred 
judicial rulings of these Apos¬ 
tles. Here it is : “ I will greatly 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 25 


multiply thy sorrow and thy 
conception; in sorrow shalt 
thou bring forth children ; and 
thy desire shall be to thy hus¬ 
band and he shall rule over 
thee.” 

Now observe that this is not 
the general penalty inflicted 
on Adam and Eve alike for the 
sin of eating the forbidden 
fruit, whatever that may mean. 
That penalty was death, what¬ 
ever that too may mean. But 
in addition to this judgment 
against the pair, and which is 
entailed on all their descendants, 
not by arbitrary decree, but by 
the execution of natural law, 
there was a special penalty 
assigned to each, manifestly, 
even to our poor faculties, ap¬ 
propriate to each. In the case 


26 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

of Adam, the special penalty 
and the reason for it are plainly 
announced: u Because thou 

hast hearkened to the voice of 
thy wife . . cursed be the 

ground for thy sake,” etc., the 
plain meaning of which is, that 
whereas, in the former state of 
innocence and under the shady, 
fruit-laden bowers of Eden^ he 
and his wife would have had, 
both about alike, an easy task, 
now the brunt of the outdoor 
work must fall to him . and, 
toiling and sweating in the hot 
sunshine, he must make a living 
for a larger family than other¬ 
wise if his wife had not sinned. 
Respecting the special penalty 
assigned to Eve the reason is 
not directly expressed, but I 
think it fairly implied as 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 27 


already intimated. I make the 
supposition with reverence su¬ 
preme to the Sovereign above, 
and reverence subordinate to 
His wise and good servants 
below. If I am wrong, may 
they all forgive. The point 
here made is, that this humili¬ 
ation of Eve to the rulership 
of Adam contemplates her in 
her relation, not to the race at 
large, not to the outer world, 
not to society, sacred or sec¬ 
ular, but wholly and only to her 
husband, and that, too, in the 
experience of her bed-chamber; 
and it were a miserable mock- 
modesty if I said less, and an 
insult to honest interpretation 
if I said anything different. 
Enough of this for any ordinary 
purpose; but so much depends 


28 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

on the understanding of this 
passage, which the whole Chris¬ 
tian world will finally entertain, 
that I must add one field sweep¬ 
ing paragraph, even at the ri-k 
of criticism for repetition and 
unnecessary enlargement: the 
act of Eve, done without the 
knowledge, counsel, or consent 
of Adam, was not only a sin 
against her Sovereign, but a 
crime against her husband; 
while the act of Adam, done 
with the knowledge, counsel 
and consent of Eve, though a 
sin against his Sovereign, was 
not a crime against his wife; 
and, therefore, the even balance 
of the innocent pair was dis¬ 
turbed, incurring justly the 
special Divine rebuke, and justi¬ 
fying the readjustment made. 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 29 


And the spirit of this Divine 
judgment is, that any of the 
daughters of Eve, to the end of 
time, who are wives, and who 
dishonor their marital relations 
in any way, are justly subject 
to censure, and it is the right 
and duty of either church or 
state, as the case may be, act¬ 
ing as the ordained of God for 
the punishment of evil doers 
and the praise of them that do 
well, to execute a suitable sen¬ 
tence of rebuke. And I shall 
show, when I come to it, that 
this is exactly what Paul was 
doing when he remanded to 
silence and subjection^ those 
Corinthian and Ephesian 
women. And this brings me, 
where I am glad to be, to the 
feet of Paul, who, next to Jesus 


30 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

of Nazareth, was the grandest 
man that ever opened his 
mouth or used a pen, and who, 
instead of being the crusty old 
bachelor that some irreverently 
call him, is still the truest and 
bravest defender of woman that 
ever preached a sermon or 
wrote a book. 

The first passages of Paul 
now to be examined are in I 
Cor. 11: 3-16, and 14: 34-35. 
The former is too long to quote 
here. Suffice it to say, the 
author affirms the truth that 
“ the head of the woman is the 
man,” as our English versions 
have it, and from this premise 
he draws some conclusions re¬ 
specting certain improprieties 
in the public meetings of the 
church of Corinth. He endor- 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 31 


ses the time-honored custom of 
long hair and hats on for 
women, and short hair and hats 
off for men, in public assem¬ 
blies. It is plainly implied 
that on this matter of etiquette 
there were contentions in the 
public meetings (see v. 16 ), 
and herein consisted chiefly the 
evil which Paul was denounc¬ 
ing ; namely, that it made hus¬ 
bands and wives conspicuously 
antagonistic in public assem¬ 
blies. The only point I am 
now making is, that the men 
here intended were husbands 
and the.women here intended 
were wives of each other res¬ 
pectively. The manner in 
which the subject is introduced 
shows this. The relation ex- 
is ting between the man and 


32 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 


the woman is illustrated and 
dignified by that existing 
between God and Christ, and 
by that existing between Christ 
and every man — between God 
the Father and Christ the Son, 
and between Christ the Head 
of the whole church and the 
church His bride, which would 
include every husband here 
intended. Now the question 
is, was any man in that church 
the head of any woman in that 
church, unless that woman 
were that man’s wif§ ? Plainly 
not; and, therefore, it would 
have been better to translate 
the terms accordingly. Besides, 
it is morally certain that in 
that great city church there 
were many maids, young and 
old, and many widows whom 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 33 


death had freed from the Jaw 
of their husbands. Had each 
one of these a head in the per¬ 
son of some man? And note 
particularly that in v. 9, Paul 
refers for illustration and for 
argument to the relation of the 
first-created pair. Was Adam 
anything of a head to Eve, 
only as he was her husband 
and she his wife ? 

This prepares us the better 
to go on now into chapter 14; 
34, 35, of the same book : “Let 
your women keep silence in 
the churches; for it is not per¬ 
mitted unto them to speak; 
but to be under obedience as 
also saith the law. And if they 
will learn anything, let them 
ask their husbands at home : 
for it is a shame for women to 


34 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

speak in the church.” Here 
it is plain that the women who 
are to keep silence in the 
churches, who are not per¬ 
mitted to speak, and for whom 
it is a shame to speak in the 
church, are the same women 
who are to ask their husbands 
at home. But what if some of 
the women who were members 
of the church or congregation 
in Corinth had no husbands at 
home ? Plainly they are not 
here included or even referred 
to at all, and, therefore, as I 
before, the reference is to 
women as wives, and to women 
in no other capacity or re¬ 
lation. 

I will skip Eph. 5: 22-33, 
for the present, and return to 
it after examining 1 Tim. 2: 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 35 


8-15 : “ I suffer not a woman 

to teach, nor to usurp autho¬ 
rity over the man.” This is 
the old, authorized version. 
The revised version has it: “I 
permit not a woman to teach 
nor to have dominion over a 
man, but to be in quietness.” 
The italics are mine. 

Take either version, and is 
the woman who is here for¬ 
bidden to teach or to usurp 
authority over the man, or to 
have dominion over a man, 
(whichever way you choose to 
read it) — is this woman, I 
ask, any woman who is not a 
wife ? 

The appeal of the author, as 
in the texts 1 Cor.: 11 and 14, 
to the original case of Adam 
and Eve, should settle it. “ For 


36 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

Adam was first formed, then 
Eve. And Adam was not de¬ 
ceived, but the woman being 
deceived was in the transgres¬ 
sion.” (V. 13 and 14.) But if 
this does not settle it, what 
will you make of v. 15 : “ Not¬ 
withstanding she [this same 
woman so forbidden] shall be 
saved in child-bearing,” etc. 
Does not this upset at once the 
assumption that the term 
woman in all these Scriptures 
means woman, as woman , and 
confirm my contention that it 
means woman only as wife ? 

But some will say, if hus¬ 
bands and wives as such, and 
they only are intended in these 
passages, why do they not say 
so in plain words and thus cut 
off debate ? I answer, sure 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 37 


enough, why do they not? 
For the original Greek does 
say so plainly, that is, it allows 
the translators to say so 
plainly, and our translations 
are misleading. The parallel 
passage of Paul (Eph. 5) and 
that of Peter (1 Pet. 3), where 
the very same subject is under 
treatment, are correctly ren¬ 
dered. In these places, the 
Greek term aner is translated 
husband, and the Greek term 
gune is translated wife, every 
time, as the scope of the con¬ 
text requires, alike in all these 
passages. Again, while it is 
true that the Greek word aner 
primarily means an adult male 
human being j and the Greek 
word gune primarily means an 
adult female human being, it 


38 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

is true that these are the words, 
and the only words, in both 
secular and sacred Greek to 
denote husband and wife, 
although they do not of them¬ 
selves necessarily have this 
sense. But they ought to be 
always so rendered in English, 
where men and women are 
manifestly being contemplated 
in this relation. Why the 
texts in Corinthians and Tim¬ 
othy are not so rendered* it is 
hardly the part of a humble 
layman to say. Still the hum¬ 
blest layman may venture to 
express his disappointment that 
the revised version follows the 
the same old groove, and while 
improving the text in Timothy 
by leaving out the comma 
after the word “teach”—an un- 





THE WOMAN QUESTION 39 


inspired comma which has 
modified the teachings of theo¬ 
logians for a thousand years 
— this version, by substitut¬ 
ing the article a for the article 
the , making it read “ over a 
man,” instead of “ over the 
man,” has turned the wheel of 
revision backward instead of 
forward. The truth is, there 
are no articles here in the 
Greek which require the trans¬ 
lator to say necessarily either 
a or the. But if a is still the 
indefinite article,and when used 
at all emphatically is equiv¬ 
alent to any , and if the term 
woman means an adult female 
human being and the term man 
means an adult male human 
being, then what severe read¬ 
ing this, in the closing days of 


40 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

the 19th century: “ I permit 
not any adult female to teach 
or have dominion over any 
adult male.” Why not let 
Paul say plainly what he 
means — “I permit not a wife 
to teach or have dominion over 
a husband,”—and then let the 
whole context shed its clear 
light on that, for there is a 
clear light emitted from all 
sides of the wall surrounding 
these famous texts. Let us 
see. 

All these scriptures were 
written to correct certain 
abuses in the churches of 
Corinth and Ephesus — seats of 
wealth, learning, luxury, and 
fashion. Some of these abuses 
affected the peace and dignity 
of public assemblies and the 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 41 


proprieties of married people 
especially. Therefore no one 
of these passages, nor all of 
them collectively, can be fairly 
considered as a general law 
prohibiting women as women, 
whether married or unmarried, 
from participating in the affairs 
of either church or state. 

It lies on the face of these 
Epistles to the churches of 
Corinth and Ephesus, and that 
to Timothy, who was Pastor at 
Ephesus, that the abuses to be 
corrected had culminated in 
disgraceful public antagonisms 
between husbands and wives, 
and that in this the wives were 
chiefly at fault. For, while 
they were no doubt correct in 
claiming that the word of God 
had come to them prominently 


42 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

(for women the world over are 
more subject to religious im¬ 
pressions than men), they had 
pressed to an extreme the 
Christian doctrine that “ In 
Christ,” that is, in the Chris¬ 
tian organization, “ there is 
neither male nor female,” and 
they were wrong in claiming 
that the word should go forth 
from them in like manner. 
But however this may be, 
which is not perfectly clear, it 
is plain that these wives were 
defiantly claiming the tradi¬ 
tional last word, and so he 
exclaims: 4 What! came the 
word of God out from you ? or 
came it unto you only ? ” 

Let no one treat lightly this 
argument I am making. It 
is of immense importance to un- 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 43 


derstand Paul as he intended. 
Note, then, that he sets out in 
this letter to the Corinthian 
church by telling them that he 
had been credibly informed, 
though he could only partly 
believe it, that there were “ con¬ 
tentions among them ; ” that 
he could not address them as 
4 spiritual but as carnal,” be¬ 
cause there was among them 
“ jealousy and strife.” Farther 
on he alleges such gross offences 
as incest, covetousness, idolatry, 
slander, drunkenness, extortion, 
fraud, lawsuits and family 
quarrels. And it is plainly 
enough implied that these vices 
were aired in their public as¬ 
semblies, some accusing and 
others excusing, all angry, and 
wives taking an active part; 


44 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

even going so far as to usurp 
authority over their husbands, 
on the ground that the word of 
God had come to them chiefly. 
In this way these wives dis¬ 
honored their husbands as well 
as themselves, and so Paul, in 
his authoritative Apostolic ca¬ 
pacity, says to this particular 
church: “God is not the au¬ 
thor of confusion, but of peace, 
as in all the churches of the 
saints. Let your wives keep 
silence in the churches. 

Let all things be done decently 
and in order.” And in so do¬ 
ing he appeals to the precedent 
made by a higher court than 
his, in the case of the first wife 
of the Adamic race vho dis¬ 
honored her nuptial relation. 
And it may be added that, as 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 45 


Eve’s discipline was suited to 
her offence, so was this; for 
what could possibly be so fit 
as to require such wives as 
these to hold their tongues ? 

The passage in Eph. 5 : 22- 
33, does not seem to have any 
reference to the relation of 
husband and wife except as 
they are viewed in their own 
home and not in public assem¬ 
blies, either sacred or secular. 
It teaches the same doctrine of 
the headship of the husband 
and the corresponding subjec¬ 
tion of the wife, but there is 
no allusion even to the com¬ 
parative rights or obligations 
of either of them as members 
of the church or citizens of the 
commonwealth. But the illus¬ 
tration of this relation, drawn 


46 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

from that existing between 
Christ and the church as his 
Bride, sheds a light on this 
whole subject, at once more 
beautiful and sublime than 
anything else ever written in 
any other book, in any lan¬ 
guage of mankind. Let the 
Rights and Duties of Woman, 
especially as wife and mother, 
in her relation to the outer 
world, to society at large in all 
its material and spiritual inter¬ 
ests, be viewed in the light of 
the Rights and Duties of the 
Church in her relation to the 
same outer world, and the 
Woman Question is settled. 

Paul to Timothy is really 
Paul to this same church, for 
Timothy was her pastor — a 
young man and lately a pupil 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 47 


of Paul. Substantially the 
same conditions existed in this 
church as in that of Corinth. 
This young pastor was se¬ 
verely tried by the interfer¬ 
ence of unauthorized teachers, 
who, in addition to their fables, 
and endless genealogies, and 
quibbles which diverted so 
many from the path of practi¬ 
cal godliness into habits of 
“ vain jangling,” assumed to be 
teachers of the law (evidently 
meaning the moral law), but 
having such gross conceptions 
of it as to lead the church into 
angry disputes. And the result 
was, as in Corinth, that hus¬ 
bands and wives were brought 
into conspicuous collision in 
their public assemblies, espe¬ 
cially their prayer meetings. 



48 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

Whether this bad teaching did 
in some way lead to this result 
is not said; but, any way, 
there was in that high-toned 
city church a display of millin¬ 
ery and ornament not only in 
itself unbecoming to humble 
Christians, but inevitably tend¬ 
ing to vanity, envy and strife, j 
such as would lead many 
wives to humiliate their own ' 
husbands. And so, as before, 
the appropriate discipline had 
to come. 

Now, all these particular 
disciplinary deliverances, as 
explained by their immediate 
contexts and by the spirit of 
the whole Gospel, are still, like 
all Scripture, given by inspira¬ 
tion of God, profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for cor- 



THE WOMAN QUESTION, 49 


rection and for instruction in 
righteousness. But that they 
may be thus profitable, they 
must be applied like any other 
special statutes, in cases sim¬ 
ilar at least to those which 
originally called them forth. 
If the type of feminine Chris¬ 
tian millinery and jewelry and 
of theological and ecclesiasti¬ 
cal culture in any of the 
churches of Boston, New York, 
or Chicago should decline from 
what it is in the year of Our 
Lord 1894, to what it was in 
Corinth and Ephesus in 59-64, 
and become, as then, indecently 
glaring, competitive and arro¬ 
gant, resulting in angry dia¬ 
logue and spiteful personality; 
and if some of the married 
wumev in said churches 




50 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

should, as then and there, so 
far ignore the proprieties as to 
antagonize their own husbands 
in public assemblies on ques¬ 
tions of dress or dogma, eti¬ 
quette or reform, then these 
Pauline severities would fit, 
and be authoritative precedents 
to the rulers of said churches 
to enjoin the tongues of said 
married women. But to wrest 
these Scriptures from their 
manifest proper function, as 
specific discipline for offenses I 
actually committed, and make 
of them a general law subordi. 
nating woman as woman in 
her relations to either church or 
state, is a monstrous injustice j 
to half the race of Man and to 
the whole Bible of God. This 
closes the argument as drawn 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 51 


from the proper interpretation 
of the Scriptures in question. 

I now proceed to fortify the 
negative by two propositions. 
The first is this: A Divine 
judgment pronounced on any 
person or class of persons is 
not to be wilfully prolonged 
and executed by men upon the 
same or similar persons or 
classes. Unto the Woman he 
said: “ I will greatly mul¬ 

tiply thy sorrow and thy con¬ 
ception ; in sorrow shall thou 
bring forth children; and thy 
desire shall be to thy husband ; 
and he shall rule over thee.” 
Does this authorize husbands 
the world over to the end of 
time to compel their wives to 
be mothers of more children 
than they desire, no matter 


52 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

how much sorrow it may cost 
them ? 

“ A fugitive and a vagabond 
shalt thou be in the earth.” 
Did this authorize any one to 
follow Cain, bludgeon in hand, 
over the earth ? Cain seemed 
to think so, but the Lord set a 
mark on him to protect him; 
a mark, not a scar or tattoo, on 
his forehead, I think, but, 
let us reasonably presume, 
that evidence of his genius 
and enterprise and success 
which would and did protect 
him, as the husband of a 
princess, the daughter of the 
Chief of the tribe of Nod, 
the most evolved of all the 
pre-Adamic tribes, and, with 
her help, as a famous rancher, 
and later on, the founder of 


THE WOMAN QUESTION. 58 


the city of Enoch. (See Gen. 

4: 16, 17.) 

“ Cursed be Canaan ; a serv¬ 
ant of servants shall he be to 
his brethren! ” For some 
reasonably supposed part this 
boy took in the indignity shown 
to his grandfather Noah, while 
lying drunk in his tent, and to 
show how wicked it is for boys 
to make fun of poor drunkards, 
this awful curse was pro 
nounced. The descendants of 
Canaan became a mighty peo¬ 
ple in the land called by the 
name of this ancestor It is 
wonderful how literally and 
fearfully this curse was visited 
on a people who apostatized 
from the religion of Noah. 
And yet their very enslavers, 
he Israelites (see Joshua 9: 


54 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

22-27, and 10: 15-20, and 1 
Kings 9:21, Numbers 33 : 55, 
56), were punished for enslav¬ 
ing the Canaanites because 
they did it from evil motives. 

“0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
that killest the Prophets, , 
Behold ! your house is left unto 
you desolate! ” (Mat. 23 : 37, 
38.) These are the compas¬ 
sionate words of the Saviour to 
those who were clamoring 
“ Crucify Him, Crucify Him : 
His blood be on us and on our 
children ! ” Nothing in all his¬ 
tory so fills the mind with awe 
of the sin-avenging Jehovah 
like the forlorn experience of 
this people. But what Chris¬ 
tian minister of this age w ould 
Teach us to abhor a Jew, unless 
indeed that Jew incurrep our 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 55 


horror by still flinging scandal 
at the cross of our Redeemer ? 

Ci Woe unto him that giveth 
his neighbor drink, that put- 
test thy bottle to him and 
makest him drunken also, that 
thou mayest look on their 
nakedness.” (Hab. 2 : 15.) How 
generally and how fearfully 
the Lord finds ways of exe¬ 
cuting this anathema ? About 
fifty years ago it was my good 
fortune to be sent from Cincin¬ 
nati to Columbus, Ohio, as del¬ 
egate to a State Temperance 
Convention, in company with 
the famous Sam Carey, who 
for half a century was an au¬ 
thority in temperance statis¬ 
tics. In a grand speech on 
that occasion he affirmed that 
about nineteen out of twenty of 


56 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

all the makers and venders of 
intoxicants in the two Miami 
Valleys of Ohio, from the be¬ 
ginning to date, had gone or 
were evidently then going to 
ruin — financial and moral ruin 
—and their families with them. 
But did this authorize any 
one to set fire to distilleries, 
warehouses, or saloons, or to 
allure the sons of those drink- 
masters through those fatal 
doors of indulgence which rarely 
ever open to a returning prod¬ 
igal ? 

The other general proposi¬ 
tion which clinches my con¬ 
clusion is this : a Divine Rule, 
either permitting or forbidding 
a thing, may become obsolete^ 
null and void by limitation; 
and that, too, when the limita- 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 57 


tion is only implied but not 
expressed. Thus in general, 
the Patriarchal System was 
superseded by the Mosaic, and 
this by the Christian, and so 
the Christian as it now is, will 
be by the Millennial. All along 
the line of religious progress, 
things typical, ceremonial and 
judicial, which pertained to 
time, place, and attainment, 
come with divine approval and 
go without special repeal. Ex- 
a m p 1 e s : Polygamy, Divorce, 
Slavery, Salutations, Washing 
of Feet and the Holy Kiss. 

Not only the Patriarchs and 
Ruling Hebrews, but men gen¬ 
erally throughout those long 
economies had more wives 
than one; some of them had 
many. When the Gospel first 


58 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

went abroad to the G-entiles 
the Jews were everywhere 
found among them, and 
churches were organized some¬ 
times of one class chiefly, some¬ 
times of the other, but often of 
both combined. Many of the 
converts had more wives than 
one, and as women, more than 
men, composed the church 
membership, many of the mem¬ 
bers were polygamists. That 
this relation was not at once 
made a test and a bar to mem¬ 
bership is evident from the 
fact that an officer — a bishop 
or a deacon — must be the hus¬ 
band of one wife : he could not, 
like a private member, have 
more than one. And yet, this 
very ruling and the general 
spirit of Christianity totally 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 59 


uprooted polygamy in the 
course of one or two genera¬ 
tions. The custom gradually 
expired, without positive en¬ 
actment, by the limitations of 
time and growing intelligence. 

The same may be said of 
slavery. The Hebrew system 
of servitude did not imply 
chattel ownership of the bodies 
and souls of men as the heathen 
systems did; but the dispersed 
Jews had everywhere fallen 
into the same practice. Mul¬ 
titudes o f slaveholders i n 
heathen cities embraced Chris¬ 
tianity. There is no evidence 
that the immediate emancipa¬ 
tion of their slaves was made a 
condition of membership in the 
churches. The fact of the re¬ 
lation of masters and servants 


60 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

was recognized, but such were 
the precepts regulating that re¬ 
lation and such the spirit of 
this higher type of humanity 
that slavery gradually ceased 
out of the primitive church. In 
later centuries, when external 
Christianity became secularized 
and corrupted, it regained a 
footing and maintained it 
throughout centuries of a irre¬ 
pressible conflict,” which how¬ 
ever, has ended forever in its 
utter extinction. And still it 
stands in the Book : “ Servants, 
be subject to your masters with 
all fear,” on the same page 
with this other : “ Likewise, ye 
wives, be in subjection to your 
own husbands” — both alike 
now obsolete so far as th»*y may 
have referred to institutions 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 61 


and usages then existing, but 
afterwards, in an age of higher 
attainment, modified into milder 
precepts, the texts however re- 
maining and forever hereafter 
to be u profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction and 
for instruction in righteous¬ 
ness.” 

It was the practice of the 
Scribes and Pharisees to chal¬ 
lenge the opinion of Christ on 
the disputed questions of their 
day. Accordingly, it seems 
rather evident that the Mosaic 
law of arbitrary divorce had 
already fallen partly into dis¬ 
use, before the great Teacher, 
with one wave of His hand, 
swept it back from ever enter¬ 
ing His system. In one com¬ 
prehensive sentence He gives 


62 THE WOMAN QUESTION 

the occasion for the origin and 
the disuse of that law: “ For 
the hardness of your hearts, 
Moses wrote you this precept.” 
That is, it was to protect 
womanhood from the caprice 
and cruelty of a hard-hearted 
era that would be succeeded by 
a more humane age, gradually 
making obsolete so hard a law. 

•Let us now pass on from 
these Old Testament institu¬ 
tions to some in the New 
which, in like manner, have 
already become obsolete. 

“ Salute no man by the way/’ 
Why do not Christians obey this 
precept and refrain from saying 
“ Good Morning ” to their 
neighbors when they pass them 
in the public roads; Or why 
rather was that precept ever 



THE WOMAN QUESTION. 6H 


given and then put in the 
Book ? Simply because the 
salutation then in vogue was 
too formal, too tedious, to be 
consistent with Christian sim¬ 
plicity, dignity and useful 
work. 

Still there it stands in the 
Book : Salute no man by the 
way/* And here is another 
thing in the Book (John 13: 
13-17.) about which not all 
Christians are agreed. It is the 
precept for the washing of feet, 
given by the Master Himself, 
with unusual emphasis, and en¬ 
forced by His own example. 
Why do not Christians every¬ 
where to this day observe this 
rite ? Or, why was it enjoined 
if not to be perpetual ? Simply 
because the principles of Chis- 


64 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

tian humility, sympathy and 
equality were thus inculcated 
by a custom then and there 
significant, in a hot and dusty 
country over which men and 
women journeyed on foot and 
shod with only open-work san¬ 
dals. 

“ Greet ye one another with 
a holy kiss.” “ Greet ye one 
another with a kiss of charity.” 

Why has this injunction, orig¬ 
inally given by Paul and by 
Peter and by them written in 
the same books that say : “ Let 
your women be silent,” etc., 
long since been obsolete and 
ignored: Because it then suf¬ 
ficiently inculcated, by a custom 
among men and women alike, 
the duty of open and impar¬ 
tial Christian recognition and 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 65 


affection, and it stands in the 
Book, because the du T y then 
enjoined and only signified by 
a then present but passing form 
in society, would never cease 
to be a duty. 

Finally, both Paul and Peter 
forbi t women professing godli¬ 
ness to adorn themselves with 
broi lered hair, or gold, or 
pearls, or costly array. By 
almost universal consent, this 
has been and is a practically 
obsolete precept. Why? Tliere 
is but one true answer: There 
must liave been in those gay 
cities a special temptation to 
costly dress and ornament 
which nothing short of a rigid 
general rule of restraint would 
resist. The common effect of 
some display of wealth and 



66 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

fashion is bad enough, but suf¬ 
ficient for this is the universal 
law of humility and self denial. 
But it lies on the very face of 
these passages that there was 
in these city churches such an 
excessive display of costly 
ornament as to stimulate as in 
a hot bed, the growth of pride, 
vanity, envy, jealousy and 
strife among the rich; to hu¬ 
miliate the poor; and to mar 
the beauty of church economy 
and charity, to an extent con- 
spicious as the bold domineer¬ 
ing over their husbands of 
these same women. So that 
both these evils, and both at 
once must be met by a special 
restraining order from Apos¬ 
tolic headquarters. 

Then why will not all Chris- 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 6T 


tian teachers adopt this inter¬ 
pretation ? Why do some of 
them persist in citing these 
Scriptures as conclusive Divine 
authority for relegating to 
silence and inaction, in the 
affairs of both church and state, 
not only woman as wife but 
woman as woman ? But they 
do, and they even prefer the 
.Revised Version and read it 
triumphantly as follows: “ I 
desire therefore that the men 
pray in every place,” etc. (I 
Tim. 2 : 8.) Then like hounds 
in their eager chase, leaping 
the fence without touching it, 
they skip verses 9 and 10, 
which treat of this ornament 
business, and pounce upon 
verses 11 and 12. Let a 
woman learn in quietness with 


68 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

all subjection; but I permit not 
a woman to teach nor to have 
dominion over a man, but to 
be in quietness.” 

Be consistent, 0 learned ex¬ 
pounders, and agree that this 
whole list of texts is of one 
sort, and being a restraining 
order directed to the same 
persons — married women and 
members of these churches, 
and including in the same in¬ 
junction the matter of orna¬ 
ment and the matter of speech 
a special disciplinary sen¬ 
tence which no one has a right 
to construe as a general law 
limiting the rights or duties 
of women, as women, in their 
relations to society in general. 
As covering the whole 
ground gone over, I now eite 




THE WOMAN QUESTION. 69 


the only remaining Scripture 
which bears directly on this 
question. It is the sentence 
of the Judge on the tempter 
of Eve; “ I will put enmity 
between thee and the woman 
and between thy seed and her 
seed ; it shall bruise thy head 
and thou shalt bruise his heel.” 
Gen. 3: 15. 

This, like the othe/ parts of 
the original record of this mo¬ 
mentous transaction, is referred 
to and explained in the New 
Testament, and is seen to be 
a link in the same chain and 
from its peculiar phraseology 
evidently the last link and open 
at one end, to be finally joined 
to the first, when it shall have 
been drawn around the whole 
circle of human history. In 


70 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 

discussing it, I redeem my 
promise to end at the place 
of beginning. 

The point which I now make 
is the prominent part here indi¬ 
cated which was originally 
assigned to woman in that 
deadly conflict between the 
powers of Good and Evil which 
is to end in the triumph of 
Truth and Righteousness. For 
by the seed of the woman is 
meant Jesus the Christ, who 
almost invariably called him¬ 
self the Son of Man ; not a 
son of Man; nor son of a 
man; but the Son of Man— 
the offspring, representative 
and heir of Humanity Liter¬ 
ally, he was the son of Mary 
and of God, and only “ as was 
supposed,” that is, as known 


THE WOMAN QUESTION. 71 


on the sacred and municipal 
Registry of his native latu: 
the son of Joseph. (Luke 3; 
23.) So that this antagonist of 
Satan had his participation in 
humanity only as the seed of 
the woman, and thus to Woman 
was originally given, in a pre¬ 
eminent sense, the honor of 
that subjugation of all things, 
in its later and higher forms, 
with which Adam and Eve 
were jointly charged in the 
beginning. And as Civil Gov¬ 
ernment or the State is as really 
a Divine institution as is the 
family or the church, “the 
powers that be being ordained 
of God for the punishment of 
evil doers and the praise of 
them that do well,” this subju¬ 
gation implies the purification 


72 THE WOMAN QUESTION. 


and elevation of the politics 
of the whole world to such a 
complete extent that, to wo¬ 
man’s honor preferably because 
to Him who is her Son pre¬ 
eminently, the Alleluia shall 
be : The Kingdoms of this world 
are become the Kingdoms of 
our Lord and His Christ: And 
He shall reign forever and 
ever! 



c 239 89 11 












<=> 


, £ 

-> * W'-V *P CV _. 

• ' ' * °<^ * • • 0 

*> v «*VL'* ^ j.c 

*' \<** *+** 

, /\ ; $g(?.* ** v % 

v *^ # «. * * A ^ 

S'. ^ .•>'*,* *r> Vv c °"<» 

O • 

’- *»bv^ ° 

^ » 0 ^ . 

o * , 4S$S :r » o * 

♦ <=* 4,V > 

•p- A* ^ 






. s / £ % 
*o . »• A < 

^ , o« « 4 


•w 



V* • * * V 

<£. /Or * k ' * * 

* -P ^0 •* + 



A O. * 

■a? **. « 

P <rv % 






























































